In Thompson v. Clark, published April 4, 2022, a divided U.S. Supreme Court reversed a judgment in favor of police officer defendants on a 4th amendment malicious prosecution claim. The plaintiff was accused by a mentally ill relative of sexually abusing his one-week-old daughter. Four police officers arrived at the plaintiff's apartment. The plaintiff told the officers they could not enter without a warrant. The officers entered, and, after a scuffle, handcuffed the plaintiff. No sign of abuse was found. The officers arrested the plaintiff for resisting their entry into the apartment. An officer filed a criminal complaint against him for resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. A judge released him. Before trial, the court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the case. No explanation was given for the motion to dismiss or the dismissal. The plaintiff sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for malicious prosecution. The district court entered judgment for the officers, on the ground that the favorable termination element of malicious prosecution could not be satisfied because the criminal case had not ended in a way that affirmatively indicated the plaintiff's innocence. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Because the circuits were split on the favorable termination element, the Supreme Court granted review.
The majority held that a 4th Amendment claim under section 1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. The plaintiff need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without conviction. The plaintiff did so here. The court reached that conclusion by examining the nature of the malicious prosecution tort in 1871, when section 1983 was passed. Case law interpreting that tort required for favorable termination only that the prosecution end without conviction. The interpretation is also consistent with the values and purposes of the 4th Amendment. The question of whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged does not logically depend on whether the
prosecutor or court explained why the prosecution was dismissed. The individual’s ability to seek redress for a wrongful prosecution cannot reasonably turn on the fortuity of whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain why the charges were dismissed. Requiring an affirmative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose a section 1983 claim when the government’s case was weaker and dismissed without explanation before trial, but allow a claim when the government’s evidence was substantial
enough to proceed to trial. Further, officers will be protected from unwarranted civil suits by the requirement the plaintiff show the absence of probable cause, and by qualified immunity.
Three dissenting justices opined that there should be no 4th Amendment malicious prosecution claim.
Comments